The evidence for trademark opposition filings must be submitted timely per the trademark regulations, although minor procedural errors do not invalidate the filings.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--The present writ petition arises out of the impugned orders dated 26th February, 2020, passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi/Respondent No.1 (hereinafter "Respondent No.1"), whereby it admitted the evidence in support of oppositions filed by M/s APJ Satya Knowledge LLP/Respondent No.2/Opponent (hereinafter "Opponent"). The Petitioner/Applicant -Mr. Manish Agarwal (hereinafter "Applicant") filed four applications bearing numbers 2493063, 2493064, 2493065 and 2493069 in Classes 16, 35, 36 and 35 respectively, for the trademarks `SATYA GROUP' in black and white, and in colour logo form. The said applications were filed on 11th March, 2013 with the Trademark Registry, Delhi. The said marks are represented as under:

and

2. The marks were advertised in Trademark Journal No.1850 dated 21st May, 2018. Oppositions were filed by Opponent, through its trademark attorney based in Mumbai. The said oppositions were served upon the Applicant who filed his counter statements under Rule 44 of the Trademark Rules, 2017 (hereinafter "TM Rules"). According to the Applicant, the said counter statements were filed on 19th January, 2019.

3. The evidence in support of the oppositions under Rule 45 of the TM Rules was to be filed within two months from the time of service of the counter statements upon the Opponent. The copies of the evidence and the exhibits had to be delivered to the Applicant and the Registrar had to be intimated in writing. However, the counter statement is stated to have been served upon Opponent on 7th June, 2019 and as per the Applicant, the evidence ought to have been filed by 7th August, 2019, which was not done.

4. The Opponent, however, claims that it filed the evidence in support of the oppositions within time. It was filed electronically on 5th August, 2019 and a receipt for filing was generated. However, it is conceded by the Opponent that a wrong title had been given to the evidence which was filed on their behalf, i.e., though the documents filed were evidence to the oppositions under Rule 45, they had wrongly been titled in the cover letter as being filed under Rule 47. A hard copy was then received in the Registry on 13th August, 2019.

5. The Applicant however, disputes this position, as according to him, the evidence was neither filed nor served upon him, which is a mandatory stipulation under Rule 45.

6. Assuming that the oppositions would have been abandoned, the Applicant did not file any evidence in support of its applications under Rule 46 of the TM Rules. It is the case of the Applicant that upon receiving a show cause notice dated 24th January, 2020, on 1st February, 2020, the Applicant came to know of the evidence in support of oppositions being filed. The said notice stated that the Applicant's applications were liable to be treated as abandoned, as the Opponent had filed the evidence in support of oppositions and the Applicant had not filed his evidence in support of applications.

7. The Applicant thereafter, participated without prejudice, in a hearing before Respondent No.1, where the Opponent was directed to supply the copies of the evidence in support of oppositions to the Applicant within 1 week. A copy of the said order was also not available at the time of filing of the present petition. Pursuant to this order, the Opponent is stated to have refiled its evidence in support of oppositions by way of letters dated 28th February, 2020.

8. It is this order of Respondent No.1 and the actions of the Opponent, that are impugned in the present writ petition.

9. The present writ